• Fortress Fallout Strong-armed by ZeniMax/Bethesda into Changing Name
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cushie;47166012]also the reason a lot of companies go after this kind of thing is because you eventually lose the power of the trademark if your product name becomes ambiguous to the public. thats why for example coca-cola/coke are so intent on pushing their brand name and trademark red colour, because they will not be able to enforce their trademark if 'coke' is used by the general public to mean any cola based drink. this makes more sense than their scrolls thing, because 'fallout' could be used to refer to both games. it might look like a case of 'big guy tries to shit all over little guy just because', but its likely they are just trying to protect the trademark/brand name they have spend so long building.[/QUOTE] "Coke" is used to mean ANY soda in Louisiana and other parts of the south. It's fucking confusing as hell when I go down there and they ask me what kind of Coke I want.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47167401]Then a court will review the trademark claim case, and any judge on planet earth will decide that using the name 'the' is too generic and would not cause confusion on the part of a reasonable consumer, and thus will reject the trademark claim. Seriously, it's not that difficult. Trademark law isn't about airtight rules etched into stone tablets, it's about companies reasonably not wanting other companies to take advantage of their brand or cause needless confusion.[/QUOTE] that's just my point though. why are words like Fallout or Half Life, which have meaning and basis outside of the games that are titled after them, even able to be trademarked in the first place? unless someone has created a completely proprietary name, then publishers should have no right to be able to have a title like "Fallout" trademarked. i have no confusion as to what trademark law is in it's most primitive form, and i resent that you would imply that i did in the first place. by law, Zenimax have the right to do what they are doing, but i don't believe that the means they took to achieve that right are ethical.
This is the same shit with Candy Crush. The fucking assholes copyrighted candy, so basically you cant say candy in games.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;47168227]that's just my point though. why are words like Fallout or Half Life, which have meaning and basis outside of the games that are titled after them, even able to be trademarked in the first place? [/QUOTE] Because they are heavily associated with particular brands in a specific context, even if they are just regular English words. Name a soft drink Cocoa Cola and you'll probably wind up in court for the same reason. Zomg, cocoa is just chocolate and cola is a kind of soft drink! How dare Coca-Cola copypatentmark the word cocoa! I bet they're going to sue Hershey's! Now nobody can sell chocolate! Except that's not how trademarks work. It's about a company being reasonably able to protect their brand against either confusion or copycats. If you call your soda Cocoa Cola, you're either deliberately trying to make people think it's a Coca-Cola product, or you're inept and don't realize that people will get them confused. Either way, even though you've taken two ordinary English words and put them together, you're causing a problem for an established business- and they were here first. Again, Fallout is only trademarked in the context of its brand, a series of post-apocalyptic videogames. If you make a videogame titled Fallout, you'll run into trademark issues. If you write a post-apocalyptic book called Fallout, you'll run into trademark issues. If you are writing a non-fiction book about the effects of radioactivity, you will not run into trademark issues, because no reasonable person would get them confused. That's 'reasonable person' as in random person off the street, not as in someone with expert knowledge of the subject- hence why being a videogame with Fallout in the name is close enough to be a problem. Of all the aspects of intellectual property to have a problem with, trademarks are probably the most reasonable and innocuous. It's a far cry from the nonsense we get with Apple securing copyrights on beveled edges.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47168355]Because they are heavily associated with particular brands in a specific context, even if they are just regular English words. Name a soft drink Cocoa Cola and you'll probably wind up in court for the same reason. Zomg, cocoa is just chocolate and cola is a kind of soft drink! How dare Coca-Cola copypatentmark the word cocoa! I bet they're going to sue Hershey's! Now nobody can sell chocolate! Except that's not how trademarks work. It's about a company being reasonably able to protect their brand against either confusion or copycats. If you call your soda Cocoa Cola, you're either deliberately trying to make people think it's a Coca-Cola product, or you're inept and don't realize that people will get them confused. Either way, even though you've taken two ordinary English words and put them together, you're causing a problem for an established business- and they were here first. Again, Fallout is only trademarked in the context of its brand, a series of post-apocalyptic videogames. If you make a videogame titled Fallout, you'll run into trademark issues. If you write a post-apocalyptic book called Fallout, you'll run into trademark issues. If you are writing a non-fiction book about the effects of radioactivity, you will not run into trademark issues, because no reasonable person would get them confused. That's 'reasonable person' as in random person off the street, not as in someone with expert knowledge of the subject- hence why being a videogame with Fallout in the name is close enough to be a problem. Of all the aspects of intellectual property to have a problem with, trademarks are probably the most reasonable and innocuous. It's a far cry from the nonsense we get with Apple securing copyrights on beveled edges.[/QUOTE] right, but whereas Fallout is a name of a post-apocalyptic videogame, Fortress Fallout is name of a (medieval?) fantasy videogame. is the context limited to any sort of videogame, or does extend farther than that? not sure about the average person, but i would intuit that these were two completely different videogames. i don't see Zenimax having very much leverage in court, but having certain trademarks gives 'party a' a lot of leverage to "strong-arm" 'party b'.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;47168435]right, but whereas Fallout is a name of a post-apocalyptic videogame, Fortress Fallout is name of a (medieval?) fantasy videogame. is the context limited to any sort of videogame, or does extend farther than that? not sure about the average person, but i would intuit that these were two completely different videogames. i don't see Zenimax having very much leverage in court, but having certain trademarks gives 'party a' a lot of leverage to "strong-arm" 'party b'.[/QUOTE] it doesnt matter what genre they are, they are both the same type of product. fallout fortress could easily be construed as fallout: fortress, or people could just start calling it fallout, and they arent gonna take that risk even if it is small its like saying it would be fine to make a line of fashionable high heels for women called 'air max', because high heels have nothing to do with sports/fitness even though its a product line nike have spend forever developing.
All he has to do is change the title, I don't see why anyone would be shocked that a big company is going to aggressively defend their copyrights.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47168355]Because they are heavily associated with particular brands in a specific context, even if they are just regular English words. Name a soft drink Cocoa Cola and you'll probably wind up in court for the same reason. Zomg, cocoa is just chocolate and cola is a kind of soft drink! How dare Coca-Cola copypatentmark the word cocoa! I bet they're going to sue Hershey's! Now nobody can sell chocolate! Except that's not how trademarks work. It's about a company being reasonably able to protect their brand against either confusion or copycats. If you call your soda Cocoa Cola, you're either deliberately trying to make people think it's a Coca-Cola product, or you're inept and don't realize that people will get them confused. Either way, even though you've taken two ordinary English words and put them together, you're causing a problem for an established business- and they were here first. [/QUOTE]Wasn't cola a trademark but they lost it due to everyone using it to refer to a soft drink of sorts and going out of control?
[QUOTE=Killuah;47161287]So Rage and Doom are also words you can't use for your game I suppose?[/QUOTE] Raging Doom: Fallout The latest game from Team Elder.
[QUOTE=Cushie;47170533]it doesnt matter what genre they are, they are both the same type of product. fallout fortress could easily be construed as fallout: fortress, or people could just start calling it fallout, and they arent gonna take that risk even if it is small [/QUOTE] The name is actually Fortress Fallout, which was probably done to avoid that confusion. When I read the name, my first thought was Team Fortress.
Bethesda sure is doing a good job of proving they're still an absolute shit company of assholes who both have very little actual talent and ride on mass popularity and nostalgia to sell their games.
[QUOTE=draugur;47185529]who both have very little actual talent and ride on mass popularity and nostalgia to sell their games.[/QUOTE] How is having dumb lawyers doing anything to back up either of these claims, especially the factually false nostalgia one? I can't really disprove the mass popularity one because I mean, they're a big developer famous for making games, but I'd like to point out that they're also not infamous. And even then, it's not even Bethesda doing it lmao, it's ZeniMax, the parent company.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47161088]My take on this type of thing is if you are doing something in an unrelated business, then I'd be on your side in using a term associated with someone else's product. But in this case, a person is making a game using the name of a famous series of games, and the word "Fallout" is the actual name of a game.[/QUOTE] His game doesn't look anything like Fallout though, it might as well have been an unrelated business. Also the title just contains the word 'fallout', it's not like it's called 'The Fallout', 'Fallout: Fortress' or something. I don't side with Bethesda here because I can't imagine anyone being misled by the name of this game. At least he's getting some free publicity out of it.
[QUOTE=draugur;47185529]Bethesda sure is doing a good job of proving they're still an absolute shit company of assholes who both have very little actual talent and ride on mass popularity and nostalgia to sell their games.[/QUOTE] Why does nobody ever understand how Bethesda works? Bethesda Game Studios is the developer who makes Elder Scrolls and Fallout and does [I]nothing else[/I]. ZeniMax Media is the company that [I]owns[/I] Bethesda Game Studios. Bethesda Softworks is ZeniMax Media's in-house publisher who markets and protects its properties, including Bethesda Game Studios, id, Arkane, etc. Bethesda Game Studios has literally [I]no say[/I] in this matter. ZeniMax and/or Bethesda Softworks are the ones suing.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47185803]His game doesn't look anything like Fallout though, it might as well have been an unrelated business. [/QUOTE] Trademark law isn't written with savvy consumers in mind after a thorough evaluation, it's written with the average person in mind. Your average person will see at a glance that they're both 1. videogames, and 2. named Fallout. I used 'cocoa cola' as an example on the last page, so continuing the theme, even if I'm selling chocolate soda called Cocoa-Cola that looks and tastes nothing like Coca-Cola I can't use a name that close. It doesn't matter that the product is nothing alike, it's a similar name in the same market. The other thing people seem to miss is that the C&D letter and threat of lawsuit isn't saying 'this is our trademark and you have absolutely infringed upon it and done us great harm'. The lawsuit says that it's close enough to go to court, and then the judge will decide. If they don't send C&Ds on the 'maybe' cases, then there's a precedent for other companies to genericize their trademark.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;47161737]it's in the dictionary defined as a word but it's being used to refer to a product, not the meaning of the word according to dictionary "brah did you play the new fortress fallout?" any reasonable assumption would be of bethesda fallout, not this new video game. if i were to make a "fallout cleaning products" then that's fine![/QUOTE] Context matters. He didn't say Fallout, he said Fortress Fallout. No one thinks I meant to say iPhone when I say Phone Exclusive rights to singular words could be dangerous territory to be walking in
[QUOTE=TheTalon;47187348]Context matters. He didn't say Fallout, he said Fortress Fallout. No one thinks I meant to say iPhone when I say Phone Exclusive rights to singular words could be dangerous territory to be walking in[/QUOTE] No. Take Ford for example. Yes, the word existed long before Henry Ford start making cars, but if I stated making and marketing cars called "Ford-Speeds" I would quite rightly get my ass sued for trademark infringement.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47186112]Trademark law isn't written with savvy consumers in mind after a thorough evaluation, it's written with the average person in mind. Your average person will see at a glance that they're both 1. videogames, and 2. named Fallout. I used 'cocoa cola' as an example on the last page, so continuing the theme, even if I'm selling chocolate soda called Cocoa-Cola that looks and tastes nothing like Coca-Cola I can't use a name that close. It doesn't matter that the product is nothing alike, it's a similar name in the same market. The other thing people seem to miss is that the C&D letter and threat of lawsuit isn't saying 'this is our trademark and you have absolutely infringed upon it and done us great harm'. The lawsuit says that it's close enough to go to court, and then the judge will decide. If they don't send C&Ds on the 'maybe' cases, then there's a precedent for other companies to genericize their trademark.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying Zenimax isn't in the right legally, I just think it's a dumb situation. But I don't think your Coca-Cola comparison is apt, mainly because 'Coca-Cola' isn't an actual word and also because it isn't just the name of a product in particular, it's the name of a company that already produces a variety of beverages.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.